AKKA BAI Vs. GOWRAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) a compromise petition in this appeal has been presented to this court. Parties are present. But strangely a dispute has arisen as to whether the respondent is really the respondent. The counsel for respondent on record submits that he has not received a copy of the compromise petition.

(2.) in answer to that, Sri k. Channabasappa, the learned counselappearing for the appellant, submits that the counsel for the respondent - plaintiff has acted contrary to the interests of his client and he is supporting some third party and therefore, he has not served the copy on the counsel. That is a very serious charge which this court will not investigate. That must be left. To the authorities created for that purpose under the Provisions of the Indian advocates act. However, Sri gangadhar, who now appears for the respondent gowrawwa contends that he has filed his vakalath for the respondent and he could not secure no objection from Sri shastry, who had already entered appearance for her, in the peculiar circumstances of the case. In that circumstance, we have been forced to satisfy ourselves as to the identity of the person now present before court claiming to be gowrawwa. We have made her to sign on a blank sheet of paper supplied by the court in the open court. We have compared that signature with the signature on the vakalath and the memorandum of compromise as well as the signature on the vakalath authorising Sri shastry's appearance at an earlier point of time. Even for a naked eye comparison by us, it is obvious that all the four signature are executed by the same person. Therefore we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the person present in court describing herself to be gowrawwa is the person who is the respondent in this appeal

(3.) we have, in that circumstance,directed Sri shastry either to continue on record alongwith Sri gangadhar or retire from the case for want of instructions. He says that he will file memo of retirement. He is permitted to do so.